Should the U.S. respond to Syria's use of chemical weapons on its citizens

Comments

PastResident

Since even John Kerry was going on about how the gas attacks are against INTERNATIONAL norms and INTERNATIONAL law, I see no better time to call out the UN to handle this mess. So if the UN inspectors agree with US Intelligence let the International community see what they can do to get Iran and Russia on board. It may be a black eye on our current administration after having drawn a red line, but if we were really going to act on that threat, it should have happened long ago.

GopherState

I really don't know what the answer is. If it was just overturning the Syrian government, I would say no.

What would history paint of the United States if we had not fought against the Germans and eventually helped eliminate the concentration camps during WWII?

Whatever happens, this needs to be an international deal, even if Russia doesn't support it. They will be on the wrong side of history if the evidence proves that the Syrian government is using chemical warfare on its citizens.

BTW, wasn't it once said that Iraq had chemical weapons and that many trucks were seen going north into Syria before the start of the Iraq war? Is it likely that these chemical weapons were moved into Syria?

JReader

Just what is our objective in attacking Syria ? How will it be achieved ?

What message does it send to the world if we were to attack the Assad regime who is being opposed by Al Qaeda rebels ? For more than a decade we have been told Al Qaeda has been our biggest named enemey. Now we would align ourselves with them and do their bidding by attacking Syria ?

They are engaged in a civil war. Over 100,000 civilians have already lost their lives. How these innocent people lost their lives seems much less important than reaching a peaceful resolution. Our involvement will do nothing to bring this war to an end.